Showing papers by "John Agnew published in 2008"
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that borders are artefacts of dominant discursive processes that have led to the fencing off of chunks of territory and people from one another, and that these processes can change and as they do, borders live on as residual phenomena that may still capture our imagination but no longer serve any essential purpose.
Abstract: From one viewpoint, interstate borders are simple ‘artefacts on the ground’. Borders exist for a variety of practical reasons and can be classified according to the purposes they serve and how they serve them. They enable a whole host of important political, social, and economic activities. From a very different perspective, borders are artefacts of dominant discursive processes that have led to the fencing off of chunks of territory and people from one another. Such processes can change and as they do, borders live on as residual phenomena that may still capture our imagination but no longer serve any essential purpose. Yet, what if, although still necessary for all sorts of reasons, borders are also inherently problematic? We need to change the way in which we think about borders to openly acknowledge their equivocal character. In other words, we need to see a border not as that which is either fixed or that as such must be overcome, but as an evolving construction that has both practical merits and demerits that must be constantly reweighed. Thinking about borders should be opened up to consider territorial spaces as ‘dwelling’ rather than national spaces and to see political responsibility for pursuit of a ‘decent life’ as extending beyond the borders of any particular state. Borders matter, then, both because they have real effects and because they trap thinking about and acting in the world in territorial terms. Keywords: borders, frontiers, decent life, dwelling, territory, heterotopia, globalization (Published online: 7 November 2008) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics. Vol. 1, No. 4, 2008, pp. 175-191. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v1i4.1892
220 citations
TL;DR: Agnew et al. as mentioned in this paper evaluated the US military surge in Iraq using nighttime light signatures using night-time signatures, and concluded that the surge had little effect on the security of the country.
Abstract: Baghdad Nights: Evaluating the US Military ‘Surge’ Using Nighttime Light Signatures John Agnew Thomas W. Gillespie Jorge Gonzalez Brian Min CCPR-064-08 December 2008 Latest Revised: December 2008 California Center for Population Research On-Line Working Paper Series
74 citations
Book•
28 Mar 2008
TL;DR: The Geography of the New Bipolarity, 1994-2006 as discussed by the authors, 1994 -2006, Italian Style, and the Geographical Secret to Berlusconi's Success: What Went Up Later Came Down.
Abstract: Preface 1 Introduction 2 The Geography of the New Bipolarity, 1994-2006 3 Party Replacement, Italian Style 4 The Geographical Secret to Berlusconi's Success 5 What Went Up Later Came Down 6 Conclusion References
62 citations
Book•
28 Oct 2008
TL;DR: In this article, the authors highlight the continued importance of the more traditional state-based conception of politics in human geography, focusing on six themes: new agendas in political geography, state territoriality, international relations and globalization, internal territorial organisation and geographical scale, social movements and electoral participation, and identities and citizenship.
Abstract: Depending on the breadth or narrowness of the understanding of politics and the political, 'politics' in human geography is defined as either the operation of power in all social relations or the workings of power directed to or by the state. This volume avoids the two extremes by acknowledging the transformation of approaches to the political in human geography over the past few decades but also by highlighting the continued importance of the more traditional state-based conception of politics. The selected articles are clustered around six themes: new agendas in political geography, state territoriality, international relations and globalization, internal territorial organisation and geographical scale, social movements and electoral participation, and identities and citizenship.
2 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that making political science matter is too tightly referenced to the peculiarities of US political science to be of much interest to geographers interested in our own "relevance debate" and suggest that geographical debates about the means and ends of academic knowledge are more textured and advanced than those articulated in this book.
Abstract: today. The fi eld is postparadigmatic in a way US political science is not. This means that it is much harder to do for human geography what the contributors to this book aim do for political science: namely, make claims about the fi eld as a notional whole as if it could and should be shifted in one or other direction. In short, Making political science matter is too tightly referenced to the peculiarities of US political science to be of much interest to geographers interested in our own ‘relevance debate’. Indeed, reading Making political science matter leads me to think that geographical debates about the means and ends of academic knowledge are more textured and advanced than those articulated in this book. Political scientists might, in fact, look at these debates to see where their own fi eld might be in 20 or 30 years. Wishful thinking, I know, not least because the hegemons of US political science (like their counterparts in economics) have far too much to lose to admit diversity and pluralism into their fi eld.
TL;DR: In this paper, a new configuration of global power where the hegemony no longer can be exclusively associated to the United States is discussed, where the power grows spatially in much more complex ways and we needed to understand it if we want to question it.
Abstract: Hegemonia e imperio sao termos diferentes, que oferecem interpretacoes profundamente distintas do poder estadunidense e suas manifestacoes contemporâneas, e de como dito poder pode ser mudado. Depois de uma breve introducao sobre ambos os termos, o texto procura mostrar como a hegemonia pode ser entendida espacialmente e, dessa forma, como a hegemonia dos Estados Unidos dificilmente sera canalizada em um imperio, destacando o fiasco politicomilitar estadunidense no Iraque, apesar da sua aparente supremacia militar depois da Guerra Fria. Finalmente, considerarei a emergencia de uma nova configuracao do poder global, em que a hegemonia ja nao pode ser exclusivamente associada aos Estados Unidos. A questao central que subjaz e a necessidade de fugir da armadilha de pensar o poder em termos exclusivamente territoriais: Estados versus imperios. O poder se desenvolve espacialmente de maneiras muito mais complexas, e necessitamos entende-lo, se quisermos questiona-lo. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: hegemonia, imperio, soberania, espacialidade, poder. THE NEW CONFIGURATION OF GLOBAL POWER John Agnew Hegemony and empire are different words that offer widely distinct interpretations of the power of the United States and their contemporary manifestations, and how this power can be changed. After a brief introduction about both words, we will show how hegemony can be spatially understood and, in this way, how difficult it is for the hegemony of the United States to be channelled in an empire, pointing out the political-military American fiasco in Iraq in spite of her apparent military supremacy after the Cold War. Finally, we will consider the emergency of a new configuration of global power where the hegemony no longer can be exclusively associated to the United States. The underlying central subject is the need to flee the trap of thinking power exclusively in territorial terms: States versus empires. The power grows spatially in much more complex ways and we needed to understand it if we want to question it. KEYWORDS: hegemony, empire, sovereignty, spatiality, power. LA NOUVELLE CONFIGURATION DU POUVOIR GLOBAL John Agnew Hegemonie et empire sont des termes differents qui donnent des interpretations extremement distinctes du pouvoir nord-americain et de ses manifestations contemporaines et permettent de voir comment ce pouvoir en question peut etre modifie. Suite a une breve introduction concernant ces deux termes, nous montrerons comment l’hegemonie peut etre percue dans l’espace et donc, comment l’hegemonie des Etats-Unis difficilement conduira a un empire. Nous mettrons en evidence le fiasco politico militaire des Etats-Unis en Irak malgre une suprematie militaire apparente apres la Guerre Froide. Finalement, nous prendrons en consideration le surgissement d’une nouvelle configuration du pouvoir global dans lequel l’hegemonie ne peut plus etre exclusivement associee aux Etats-Unis. La question principale subjacente consiste a eviter le piege qui est de concevoir le pouvoir en termes exclusivement territoriaux: les Etats versus les empires. Le pouvoir se developpe dans l’espace de maniere beaucoup plus complexe et il nous faut le comprendre si nous voulons le remettre en question. MOTS-CLES: hegemonie, empire, souverainete, spatialite, pouvoir. Publicacao Online do Caderno CRH: http://www.cadernocrh.ufba.br